Watch Enchantment For Free

Captivating movie !

Admirable film.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

When TRANS-LUX Theaters decided in 1948 to abandon their policy of showing programs of news and short subjects in favor of the more conventional idea of showing feature movies like everyone else, ENCHANTMENT was the first picture they booked --- with great success. It was a solid good picture, very well promoted, and ran for multiple weeks. Because the picture has no outlaws, sheriffs, cattle, et cetera, I skipped it in 1948 but we saw it tonight -- after 60 years -- on DVD.The verdict is mixed. While I score it 8/10 truthfully I was expecting a more deeply emotional movie (partly based on reviews on this site) but while I appreciated and enjoyed the movie I was expecting to be heart-struck and was not. So, OK, this was better drama than any of the trash released by Hollywood's current cocaine crowd in 2007-2008, so please take my opinion as a very mild disappointment. An 8/10 ain't bad.

This is possibly David Niven's very best performance. It took several scenes before I realized that it was actually a heavily made-up Niven who was portraying the elderly Rollo. Even Niven's voice is different for the elder Rollo - about an octave lower - than for the younger Rollo! He portrays the younger Rollo, with his usual charm, panache and sympathy. Niven's performance is worth the effort to see this movie; I gained much respect for him as an actor.Likewise, Teresa Wright is perfect as Lark. While I regard her more as cute (possibly "pretty"), rather than beautiful, she always radiates a glow. Her eyes are extremely expressive; they sparkle with soulfulness. Little Gigi Pereau, as the young Lark, initially steals our hearts, and it would have been great to see more of her. However, as the older Lark, Teresa Wright, is no less effective in her "larceny" than her young counterpart. We embrace her and root for her through the entire film. She is excellent.The best performance, however, is given by Jayne Meadows as Selena. Selena is a more complex character, and Meadows delivers a nuanced performance. From the moment of her arrival, little Lark arouses feelings of jealousy and insecurity in young Selena (who has also lost her own mother). These feelings mold the character portrayed by Meadows, yet so do the feelings of love and responsibility she feels toward her brothers - especially Rollo. Meadows' Selena never comes across as a mere evil step-sister. Her affection and concern for Rollo (however misdirected) always come across as genuine. Although we do not like Selena, we understand her. She is never one-dimensional.Another commentator has provided great insight into the scene transitions. They are masterful and set the story-telling apart. This film is a technical treat - in any age. The costumes, sets, props - everything is first-rate.BUT, this is not a love story. It is two stories told simultaneously, much like the more recent "French Lieutenant's Woman." Each informs the other. ONE of the stories is a love story, but the other is a story of UNFULFILLED love. Rollo, having missed out on the love of his life, becomes intent on seeing his niece, Grizel, and her Canadian beau, Pax, avoid the same mistake he made. In the end, it seems that he succeeds with them where he failed in his own life.The failure of Lark and Rollo to get together is due more to the common (and annoying) plot device of miscommunication (or more precisely, total lack of communication) between the two sweethearts than to Selena's machinations. That lack of communication between people who are supposedly in love is very frustrating for me to watch. Consequently I found Lark and Rollo's love story more frustrating than romantic - as I do the plethora of films that rely on this overused device. Thus, while the latter love story between Grizel and Pax ends happily, the earlier love story between Lark and Rollo does not. So if you like stories about love's being fulfilled, this movie may not satisfy you: half of it ends unhappily.

What a wonderful movie! I had never heard of it and had no idea what it was. It's a lost treasure, it seems."Enchantment" is the story of two generations, and a very special love. The narrator is the house they lived in at various times. When the movie begins, David Niven is an old man, Rollo, during World War II, and he is living alone in the house with the man-servant with whom he grew up, Leo G. Carroll. His niece, in the service, comes to stay with him and soon meets a wounded soldier (Farley Granger) who has a connection to the house.Rollo's story, and the story of his sister, brother, and the little girl that came to live with them, Lark, is told in flashbacks throughout the film as they grow up and Rollo and Lark fall in love. After a flashback, the camera focuses on the fireplace, or some other object, and we are brought back into the present, with the fire still burning or the book still in the bookshelf, and we are back with Rollo and his niece in the present day. It is a seamless way to tell the story and very poignant.David Niven is wonderful as Rollo but the surprise performance for me was by Jayne Meadows as his selfish, sharp-tongued sister Selina, who always resented Lark. She is excellent. Farley Granger and Evelyn Keyes are the present day young loves, and they give very sweet performances. Gigi Perreau as the small child Lark is heartbreaking.The ending of the film is very striking. My only criticism would be that it seemed as if the character of Rollo aged 50 years instead of about 30.Don't miss this marvelous film.

First a house talks to us. Then we meet an elderly man. A young woman comes to the house, which is, or was, his. (The exact tense of this is never clear.) He tells her a little about his childhood. Back to her. He and the others are no longer children. She is now falling in love with Farley Granger (in an unbecoming mustache.) Back and forth it goes, with short scenes, like theatrical blackouts. And never do we get to care about the people.It is one stereotype after another. Someone comes into a room, for example. A woman is holding a handkerchief to her eyes. "You've been crying, my dear, " he observes.The only character of interest is the evil Selina, played by Jayne Meadows. Even she, though, is two-dimensional. She is Alexis Carrington in period dress.And speaking of dress, somehow this movie makes the lovely Theresa Wright look homely. I wanted to like her character, named Lark. But I didn't believe her.This comes across as an idea that started to go badly and got more and more out of hand. Then, (it seems, though of course this didn't happen) someone dropped the film and it was hastily reassembled into a vaguely coherent whole.Very few A-pictures of its period are such miserable failures as this movie is. And I have no grudge against it. I'd never heard of it till today. There must be a reason that, despite its starry cast and its beautiful cinematography by Gregg Toland, it is relatively little known. I posit that the reason is it's trite and not even believable.I love fugues. But this is about as far from Bach as ever anything could be.